on equality

[Sloppy Joe]

found this interesting ...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/colum...s_at_risk.html

Two years ago, Belmont Abbey College discovered that its health-insurance company included abortion, sterilization, and contraception coverage in the school's policy. Without consulting the faculty, college president William Thierfelder dropped coverage of these items, because the 130-year-old Benedictine school "is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church."


A few employees complained to the EEOC. After a 14-month investigation, the commission's district office informed the school in March that it was closing its file on the complaint after finding no evidence that Belmont Abbey was guilty of discrimination, according to Thierfelder. But the Washington EEOC office decided to reconsider that determination, he said, and after an additional four months decided the college was discriminating. Now it must reach an agreement with the complainants or potentially face a federal lawsuit.


What discrimination did the commission find that outweighs this orthodox Catholic college's core religious convictions? Gender discrimination. You see, only women take oral contraceptives, so it's gender discrimination not to provide them. Since only women get abortions, it's not hard to see what's coming for faith-based groups with moral objections to the Obama-Planned Parenthood agenda.

yea, it's - interesting.

[pyramidsong]

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, yes, it gender-based because women ARE the ones who have to suffer the consequences of unwanted pregnancy, and I am all for women's right to choose. On the other hand, if this is a private institution which has very clear principles and values (no matter how foolish or outdated *I* may find them to be) then people can choose to live by those principles or leave.

I have a distant relative who owns a pharmacy store. He is a devout Catholic and he came under fire for not selling contraceptives. Now, initially I thought "ugh, what a conservative dick." But then I realised, well, it's his private company, his choice. People have the choice to take their business elsewhere if they're offended.

[UltraShy]

I'm going to guess that if I earn a PhD and apply to be a professor they'd likely discriminate against me, as a militant atheist, since I clearly fail to toe the Catholic line.

While I'm strongly pro-choice (pro-abortion), I can certainly see their point. What would you expect from a private Catholic institution?

What's next? Are Catholic churches going to demand that their priests (who are all male) actually be Catholic? Is that discrimination?

[nubly]

hmmm. i always thought that religious places can get away with such things? the place i work for was bought out by a catholic business and here is what it says:

The corporation has three levels of management. The Corporate Members are the highest level of management, and appoint the members of the Board of Directors. The Corporate Members are religious women, one from each of the religious orders that co-sponsor CHW. The Board of Directors, together with the Corporate Members, appoint the Executive Management.

The co-sponsors of CHW are Catholic religious communities that have specific rights and responsibilities for CHW. Each community selects one woman to act as one of the seven Corporate Members. The seven co-sponsors are as follows:

[BlueBamboo]

Interesting. While I disagree entirely with their objections, they are a private company and they have the right to operate their company in accordance with the owner's personal beliefs, the company's mission statement, and so on. I don't necessarily think this is discriminatory, but I do have one minor qualm with it, which I will get to later.

On the other hand, if a company's going to do that, and abstain from providing services to customers or employees that it would be reasonable to expect from that company, they should be given fair warning in advance. If my company is going to remove some of my medical benefits, which I've had for years, to fit in line with its beliefs, which it has also had for years, I think it's only reasonable for them to give advance notice of this so that I may find another job or private medical insurance if I need to. Same if the corner pharmacy does not fill certain prescriptions - it's reasonable to expect them to have a sign somewhere stating this, so that I know I'll need to have all my prescription information with a different pharmacy that will fill all of them.

I would also like to point out that just because hormonal birth control has "birth control" in the title, does not mean that that is the only thing it does, or that that is the only reason it may be prescribed. Many, many women (myself included) use it as the most effective means of dealing with bad cramps that would otherwise leave them unable to work a few days out of each month. It can also be used to establish regular cycles, treat endrometriosis, treat acne, lessen the chances of ovarian cancer, and many other things - basically it's a form of hormone therapy. Is treatment of these things also against the Catholic Church's teachings? Perhaps this is where the claims of gender-based discrimination come from, that women are not being allowed certain forms of treatment for a problem that only affects women?

[VIncymon]

Originally Posted by pyramidsong

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, yes, it gender-based because women ARE the ones who have to suffer the consequences of unwanted pregnancy, and I am all for women's right to choose. On the other hand, if this is a private institution which has very clear principles and values (no matter how foolish or outdated *I* may find them to be) then people can choose to live by those principles or leave.

I have a distant relative who owns a pharmacy store. He is a devout Catholic and he came under fire for not selling contraceptives. Now, initially I thought "ugh, what a conservative dick." But then I realised, well, it's his private company, his choice. People have the choice to take their business elsewhere if they're offended.

Well, let's face it, if we use their logic, then anyone who disagrees with abortion is discriminating against women ? Which is not always the case. Like you said, they have their "principles" basically its something along the lines of "all life is sacred" etc.

Now if its privately owned, and privately run .. why can't they be allowed to run it as they see fit.

This is just like when eharmony was charged with descrimination against gays; even though the company was founded by christian, and aimed for the christian market.

Isn't a private business supposed to provide whatever service the owner chooses ?

I don't like this trend. I don't like it at all.

[TATA]

Originally Posted by BlueBamboo

Interesting. While I disagree entirely with their objections, they are a private company and they have the right to operate their company in accordance with the owner's personal beliefs, the company's mission statement, and so on. I don't necessarily think this is discriminatory, but I do have one minor qualm with it, which I will get to later.

On the other hand, if a company's going to do that, and abstain from providing services to customers or employees that it would be reasonable to expect from that company, they should be given fair warning in advance. If my company is going to remove some of my medical benefits, which I've had for years, to fit in line with its beliefs, which it has also had for years, I think it's only reasonable for them to give advance notice of this so that I may find another job or private medical insurance if I need to. Same if the corner pharmacy does not fill certain prescriptions - it's reasonable to expect them to have a sign somewhere stating this, so that I know I'll need to have all my prescription information with a different pharmacy that will fill all of them.

I would also like to point out that just because hormonal birth control has "birth control" in the title, does not mean that that is the only thing it does, or that that is the only reason it may be prescribed. Many, many women (myself included) use it as the most effective means of dealing with bad cramps that would otherwise leave them unable to work a few days out of each month. It can also be used to establish regular cycles, treat endrometriosis, treat acne, lessen the chances of ovarian cancer, and many other things - basically it's a form of hormone therapy. Is treatment of these things also against the Catholic Church's teachings? Perhaps this is where the claims of gender-based discrimination come from, that women are not being allowed certain forms of treatment for a problem that only affects women?

totally agree with you there